Amber Court Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment.

The information recorded in people’s care files was not always accurate and individual. For example, some care plans referred to him when the person’s chosen pronoun was her. Other care plans were almost identical for each person, for example, the safe environment care plan. This had not considered individual environmental risks for people. When care plans were in place they had sometimes considered people’s preferences including their likes and dislikes, which staff were aware of.

The manager told us the implementation of the PCS system would help to deliver a more person-centred service. The provider told us the transition to PCS had led to a more accurate and timely record keeping. As a result, they said the care delivery had become more personalised and patient centred. As information inputted into the system was not always reflective of people’s current needs the provider had failed to ensure this system was efficiently used to ensure person centred care plans were in place.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

As care plans and risk assessments were not always up to date or reviewed the provider could not be assured people received consistent care. There was a system in place to monitor and review care however as it was not considering all the incidents and changes since the last review we could not be assured it was effective.

People and relatives were happy with how information was provided to them.

The provider told us information was available to people in different formats if they required this. We saw there were references to how people communicated in their care plans. Staff confirmed to us they were aware of these plans.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

People told us they knew how to raise concerns. We received mixed feedback on how concerns were responded to. One person said, “I have complained once about a woman who used to wander into my room. She is always looking how to get out. She came into my room yesterday to find a way out. I wasn’t very pleasant with her. I told her it’s my room not hers. Nothing has changed since I complained”. Another person said, “I’ve never made a complaint, but I would if I needed to.”

There were no records to show how people and those important to them were currently involved with their reviews of care. The manager told us they had introduced a residents and family meeting; however, these had not yet started. We will review this as part of our next inspection. The manager also told us they had no recent complaints and the feedback they had received from people was positive.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People and relatives raised no concerns with the access they had to other health professionals.

The provider told us they worked alongside external agencies who they could engage with if needed.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

As people’s care was not always tailored to their needs, we could not be assured people always received equitable experiences. For example, we found, care plans were not always up to date, they did not always reflect changes, people’s preferences, individuals’ environmental risks, which places people at risk of not receiving an equitable experience.

However, some staff were aware of potential inequalities people receiving support may face, and considered how protected characteristic may impact their care experience.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

End of life care plans were in place for people when needed. These had considered people’s choices and preferences during this time. Staff had received training in this area and were able to tell us about this.